TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme could be treated as a resolution plan for the purpose of invoking liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and whether the Central Government notification dated 24.05.2017 could be relied upon to sustain such an application.
Analysis: The approved rehabilitation scheme was sought to be equated with a resolution plan on the strength of the 24.05.2017 removal of difficulties notification. The Tribunal held that the notification had already been held to travel beyond the scope of the power under the removal of difficulties provision, and that the Supreme Court had approved that view. Once the notification was treated as ineffective, the rehabilitation scheme could not be brought within the definition of resolution plan, and the foundation for an application seeking liquidation on the alleged breach of such scheme disappeared. The earlier contrary or incomplete views of other fora were held not to assist the appellant because they did not displace the binding effect of the Supreme Court ruling.
Conclusion: The application under Sections 33 and 34 was not maintainable on the basis of the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme, and the rejection of that application was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
